Predictors of Physical Activity Behavior Transitions in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review Based on a Transtheoretical Model

Table 1

TTM-based studies on behavior change in PA in children and adolescents.

Included studies	Sample size	Nationality	Age	Woman (%)	Variables						Study design	Stage algorithm	Stage distribution (%)					Quality assessment
					SC	PC	SE	DB	PA	OV			PC	C	P	A	M
Fang et al., [23]	1129	CHN	15.4	49.4	√		√	√			CSS	①	21.7	24.9	37.4	6.1	9.8	16
Fang, [24]	899	CHN	15.9 ± 1.3	56.0	√	√					CSS	①	3.0	20.8	51.1	14.0	11.1	19
Yi et al., [25]	1508	CHN	13.93 ± 1.00	50.5	√		√	√		√	CSS	①	8.1	9.7	47.7	16.3	18.1	16
Chen et al., [26]	430	CHN	11.24 ± 1.02	35.8	√	√	√	√			CSS	①	26.5	33.3	15.8	13.3	11.2	17
Wang et al., [27]	3000	CHN	11–17	48.4	√	√					CSS	③	14.8	22.4	32.2	17.6	13.0	17
Wyse et al., [28]	244	UK	17.7 ± 1.1	58.6	√		√		√	√	CSS	①	7.8	11.9	35.7	16.8	27.5	20
Nigg and Courneya [29]	819	CAN	15.0 ± 1.22	48.7	√	√	√	√			CSS	①	2.1	4.2	28.7	15.7	49.3	18
Lee et al., [30]	819	CAN	15.0 ± 1.2	49.0	√				√		CSS	①	2.1	4.2	28.7	15.7	49.3	17
Nigg, [31]	400	CAN	14.89 ± 1.15	54.8	√	√	√	√	√		LS	①	2.3	4.5	29.0	16.8	47.5	21
Prapavessis et al., [22]	3972	NZ	16.5 ± 0.76	53.4	√	√	√	√			CSS	①	6.2	8.7	40.8	19.2	25.0	20
Prapavessis et al., [22]	1434	NZ	16.41 ± 0.71	56.4	√	√	√	√			LS	①	N/A					19
Kim, [32]	671	KR	15.8	47.4	√		√	√			CSS	①	17.5	16.6	20.4	28.3	17.2	18
De Bourdeaudhuij et al., [33]	5931	BE	14.8 ± 1.9	61.0	√		√	√	√	√	CSS	②	11.5	16.0	13.8	8.3	50.4	20
Berry et al., [34]	311	CAN	15–17	43.4	√		√	√	√		CSS	①	1.9	6.1	23.8	16.4	51.8	19
Reis et al., [35]	488	BR	14–17	42.5	√		√		√	√	CSS	①	5.5	22.3	14.5	17.8	39.8	17
Sas-Nowosielski, [36]	1251	PL	17.33 ± 0.87	65.23	√	√	√	√			CSS	①	7.6	11.4	43.3	13.1	24.7	18
Bucksch et al., [37]	588	GER	15.0 ± 0.67	49.5	√	√	√	√			CSS	②	29.8	22.0	10.7	3.4	33.2	19
Parker et al., [38]	705	AUS	17.0 ± 0.96	52.0	√				√	√	CSS	②	4.0	7.0	13.0	6.0	70.0	16
Hwang and Kim, [39]	851	KR	16.0	43.7	√	√					CSS	①	25.2	27.3	13.7	15.8	18.0	16
Serra Puyal et al., [40]	831	ES	13.8 ± 1.4	54.3	√				√		CSS	①	2.3	6.9	34.0	12.2	44.6	16
Burns et al., [41]	871	IRL	15.28 ± 1.80	100	√	√	√	√		√	CSS	①	N/A					20
Abarca-Sos et al., [42]	1618	ES	14.46 ± 1.28	45.36	√		√	√	√	√	CSS	①	2.6	7.2	26.3	12.7	51.7	18
Zamarripa et al., [43]	285	MX	16.4 ± 1.3	57.5	√			√	√		CSS	②	7.7	37.2	13.7	10.9	30.5	15
Planas et al., [44]	372	ES	12–16	44.9	√			√		√	CSS	①	3.5	11.0	24.7	8.6	52.2	18
Engels et al., [45]	357	USA	14.24 ± 0.88	71.8	√		√		√	√	LS	①	9.5	23.7	22.5	25.4	18.9	21
Wu et al., [46]	322	CHN	16.76 ± 0.68	62.4	√				√	√	CSS	②	N/A					20

Note. CHN = China, UK = the United Kingdom, CAN = Canada, NZ = New Zealand, KR = South Korea, BE = Belgium, BR = Brazil, PL = Poland, GER = Germany, AUS = Australia, ES = Spain, IRL = Ireland, MX = Mexico; SC = stage of change, PC = process of change, SE = self-efficacy; DB = decisional balance; OV = other variables; PC = precontemplation; C = contemplation; P = preparation, A = action, M = maintenance, N/A = not applicable, √ indicates the variable involved in the study; CSS = cross-sectional study, LS = longitudinal study; DA = discriminant analysis, BLRA = dichotomous logistic regression analysis, MRA = multiple regression analysis, HRA = hierarchical regression analysis, CLRA = cross-lagged regression analysis, SEM = structural equation model; ① = forced selection discrete measures, ② = progressive stage measures, ③ = scale continuous measures.